Confirmation bias

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (re-order)
(Wason card problem)
Line 17: Line 17:
 
A prime example stems from the [[intelligent design]] and [[creationism]] movements. Proponents of these ideas start by assuming that an intelligent creator must have been behind life (often assuming the [[Christian]] god) and then seeking out any evidence that might back up this claim. For example, [[Answers in Genesis]] often claims that fossils in the ground are proof of a Global flood and that layering is caused by the relative abilities of animals to reach higher grounds. They quote such examples as humans and primates being on top of dinosaurs because we could climb to higher points on  the landscape. However, they never address an evidence that might disconfirm this hypothesis such as why angiosperm plants and their pollen is never found below vascular fern fossils, or why we see absolute cut-offs in the fossil record rather than a statistical tendency, which the "climbing" hypothesis would suggest. Such examples are best explained by [[common descent]] and are thus ignored through confirmation bias by creationists.
 
A prime example stems from the [[intelligent design]] and [[creationism]] movements. Proponents of these ideas start by assuming that an intelligent creator must have been behind life (often assuming the [[Christian]] god) and then seeking out any evidence that might back up this claim. For example, [[Answers in Genesis]] often claims that fossils in the ground are proof of a Global flood and that layering is caused by the relative abilities of animals to reach higher grounds. They quote such examples as humans and primates being on top of dinosaurs because we could climb to higher points on  the landscape. However, they never address an evidence that might disconfirm this hypothesis such as why angiosperm plants and their pollen is never found below vascular fern fossils, or why we see absolute cut-offs in the fossil record rather than a statistical tendency, which the "climbing" hypothesis would suggest. Such examples are best explained by [[common descent]] and are thus ignored through confirmation bias by creationists.
  
===Wason card problem===
+
==Wason card problem==
  
 
The '''Wason Card problem''' highlights confirmation bias quite nicely. In the problem, four cards are presented, each labeled in some manner, usually two with letters and two with numbers ('''A''', '''B''', '''1''', '''2''') and each card also has a corresponding figure on the back - each card has a letter and a number on opposite sides. The following hypothesis is then tested;  
 
The '''Wason Card problem''' highlights confirmation bias quite nicely. In the problem, four cards are presented, each labeled in some manner, usually two with letters and two with numbers ('''A''', '''B''', '''1''', '''2''') and each card also has a corresponding figure on the back - each card has a letter and a number on opposite sides. The following hypothesis is then tested;  

Revision as of 19:14, 12 December 2010

Science
Icon test c.png
Major disciplines
More articles
Philosophy of science

A confirmation bias is the tendency for people to seek out information that conforms to their pre-existing view points and to ignore information that goes against them. It is a type of cognitive bias and a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study. Finding ways to avoid confirmation bias is also important in science in general.

Contents

We all do it...

Confirmation bias is one of the traits that just comes with the human condition, and the scientific method has basically "evolved" to try and counteract it. There is a tendency to test predictions of one's hypothesis that confirm it rather than seeking predictions that would disconfirm a hypothesis. Oftentimes disconfirmation is a more practical and obvious method to test between hypotheses, but even practicing scientists often miss these examples.

Confirmation bias explains, for example, why people with right-wing views buy right-wing newspapers and why people with left-wing views buy left wing newspapers. In general people both:

  • Want to be exposed to information and opinions that confirm what they already believe
  • Have have desire to ignore, or not be exposed to, information or opinions that challenge things what they already believe.

Even in cases where people do expose themselves to alternative points of view, it may be a form of confirmation bias; in that they want to confirm that the opposition is, indeed, wrong.

Intelligent design

A prime example stems from the intelligent design and creationism movements. Proponents of these ideas start by assuming that an intelligent creator must have been behind life (often assuming the Christian god) and then seeking out any evidence that might back up this claim. For example, Answers in Genesis often claims that fossils in the ground are proof of a Global flood and that layering is caused by the relative abilities of animals to reach higher grounds. They quote such examples as humans and primates being on top of dinosaurs because we could climb to higher points on the landscape. However, they never address an evidence that might disconfirm this hypothesis such as why angiosperm plants and their pollen is never found below vascular fern fossils, or why we see absolute cut-offs in the fossil record rather than a statistical tendency, which the "climbing" hypothesis would suggest. Such examples are best explained by common descent and are thus ignored through confirmation bias by creationists.

Wason card problem

The Wason Card problem highlights confirmation bias quite nicely. In the problem, four cards are presented, each labeled in some manner, usually two with letters and two with numbers (A, B, 1, 2) and each card also has a corresponding figure on the back - each card has a letter and a number on opposite sides. The following hypothesis is then tested;

"If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side."

The aim of the experiment is to test this hypothesis by turning as few cards as possible.

Most people, when given the Wason card problem, will turn over the even number (2) and the vowel (A) to see what is on the other side. This is instinctive because turning these two cards and observing another vowel and an even number respectively would confirm the hypothesis - and without context or applied critical thinking, this will be people's normal approach. However, to fully confirm the hypothesis, a third card would be needed to be flipped; 1, to confirm that it doesn't have a vowel on the other side.

Solution

Looking more critically, it can be seen that the "2" card does not need to be checked at all. If there is an even number with a consonant on the other side, that has no bearing on the hypothesis that "a vowel always corresponds to an even number". This is an instance of the need to take care when dealing with implications: the hypothesis is "vowel implies even," not "vowel if and only if (implies and is implied by) even." The hypothesis can be properly tested with only two card flips. Although only around 10% of people get this under experimental conditions, almost everyone tested agreed with the logical answer when it was revealed.

If one sets out to disprove the hypothesis the problem can be solved in two turns, rather than three. The correct cards to turn over would be 1 and A. First, turning over the odd number and viewing a vowel on the other side of that card would invalidate the hypothesis quickly and more efficiently; vowels shouldn't have odd numbers on the back. This is the main counter-intuitive step that demonstrates the need to try and disprove a hypothesis. Once the odd numbered card is flipped, the next logical card to turn would then be A to confirm whether it had an even number. The B and 2 cards are actually irrelevant to proving or disproving the hypothesis. The hypothesis states nothing about what is on the back of a consonant card (B) so it is totally irrelevant and uninteresting to test it. Revealing the opposite side of 2 would either confirm the hypothesis, by displaying a vowel, or say nothing, by showing a consonant (which is the same reason that the B card is uninteresting and irrelevant).[1]

See also

Footnotes

  1. Skeptic.com - Critical Thinking mini-lesson 3
Articles on Cognitive biases
  Clustering illusion  -  Confabulation  -  Demonization  -  Dunning-Kruger effect  -  Framing  -  Frequency illusion  -  Gambler's fallacy  -  Hindsight bias  -  Hive mind  -  Hostile media effect  -  Just world hypothesis  -  Outcome bias  -  Overconfidence effect  -  Overgeneralization  -  Selection bias  -  Survivorship bias  -  Texas sharpshooter fallacy  -  Ultimate attribution error  -  Walled garden  
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support